CWE-22
Weakness Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Many file operations are intended to take place within a restricted directory. By using special elements such as ".." and "/" separators, attackers can escape outside of the restricted location to access files or directories that are elsewhere on the system. One of the most common special elements is the "../" sequence, which in most modern operating systems is interpreted as the parent directory of the current location. This is referred to as relative path traversal. Path traversal also covers the use of absolute pathnames such as "/usr/local/bin" to access unexpected files. This is referred to as absolute path traversal.
Mapping guidance
This CWE entry might have children that would be more appropriate.
Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit. Consider children such as CWE-23 (or its descendants) for relative path traversal, or CWE-36 for absolute path traversal.
Relationships and members
Modes of introduction
Detection methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated techniques can find areas where path traversal weaknesses exist. However, tuning or customization may be required to remove or de-prioritize path-traversal problems that are only exploitable by the product's administrator - or other privileged users - and thus potentially valid behavior or, at worst, a bug instead of a vulnerability.
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis
Manual white box techniques may be able to provide sufficient code coverage and reduction of false positives if all file access operations can be assessed within limited time constraints.
Effectiveness: High
Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Web Application Scanner
Web Services Scanner
Database Scanners
Effectiveness: High
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Fuzz Tester
Framework-based Fuzzer
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
Effectiveness: High
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Source code Weakness Analyzer
Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Effectiveness: High
Architecture or Design Review
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
Effectiveness: High
Notes
Other
In many programming languages, the injection of a null byte (the 0 or NUL) may allow an attacker to truncate a generated filename to apply to a wider range of files. For example, the product may add ".txt" to any pathname, thus limiting the attacker to text files, but a null injection may effectively remove this restriction.
Relationship
Pathname equivalence can be regarded as a type of canonicalization error.
Relationship
Some pathname equivalence issues are not directly related to directory traversal, rather are used to bypass security-relevant checks for whether a file/directory can be accessed by the attacker (e.g. a trailing "/" on a filename could bypass access rules that don't expect a trailing /, causing a server to provide the file when it normally would not).
Terminology
Like other weaknesses, terminology is often based on the types of manipulations used, instead of the underlying weaknesses. Some people use "directory traversal" only to refer to the injection of ".." and equivalent sequences whose specific meaning is to traverse directories.
Other variants like "absolute pathname" and "drive letter" have the *effect* of directory traversal, but some people may not call it such, since it doesn't involve ".." or equivalent.
Research Gap
Many variants of path traversal attacks are probably under-studied with respect to root cause. CWE-790 and CWE-182 begin to cover part of this gap.
Research Gap
Incomplete diagnosis or reporting of vulnerabilities can make it difficult to know which variant is affected. For example, a researcher might say that "..\" is vulnerable, but not test "../" which may also be vulnerable.
Any combination of directory separators ("/", "\", etc.) and numbers of "." (e.g. "....") can produce unique variants; for example, the "//../" variant is not listed (CVE-2004-0325). See this entry's children and lower-level descendants.
Content history
Identified weakness in Perl demonstrative example
Provided diagram to improve CWE usability
Identified weakness in "good code" for Python demonstrative example
Provided a demonstrative example in PHP
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
Suggested OWASP Top Ten 2004 mapping
updated Alternate_Terms, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Relevant_Properties, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Description
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Detection_Factors, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Name, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Taxonomy_Mappings, Terminology_Notes, Time_of_Introduction, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Observed_Examples
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Other_Notes, Research_Gaps
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Relationships
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Demonstrative_Examples
updated Affected_Resources, Causal_Nature, Likelihood_of_Exploit, References, Relationships, Relevant_Properties, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated References, Relationships
updated References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Type
updated Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
updated Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
updated Observed_Examples, References
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Detection_Factors
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
updated Observed_Examples
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, References
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Name, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
16155 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-56GM-VR9P-4JRR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:42 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:42Directory traversal vulnerability in the FTP client in Serengeti Systems Incorporated Robo-FTP 3.7.3, and probably other versions before 3.7.5, allows remote FTP servers to write arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in a filename in a server response.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-4095"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2010-10-26T20:00:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Directory traversal vulnerability in the FTP client in Serengeti Systems Incorporated Robo-FTP 3.7.3, and probably other versions before 3.7.5, allows remote FTP servers to write arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in a filename in a server response.",
"id": "GHSA-56gm-vr9p-4jrr",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:42:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:42:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-4095"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/62548"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://kb.robo-ftp.com/change_log/show/77"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/41809"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.htbridge.ch/advisory/directory_traversal_vulnerability_in_robo_ftp.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/514267/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/44073"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-56JJ-MW3H-PCFG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:53 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:38An issue was discovered in 20|20 Storage 2.11.0. A Path Traversal vulnerability in the TwentyTwenty.Storage library in the LocalStorageProvider allows creating and reading files outside of the specified basepath. If the application using this library does not sanitize user-supplied filenames, then this issue may be exploited to read or write arbitrary files. This affects LocalStorageProvider.cs.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-12479"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-13T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in 20|20 Storage 2.11.0. A Path Traversal vulnerability in the TwentyTwenty.Storage library in the LocalStorageProvider allows creating and reading files outside of the specified basepath. If the application using this library does not sanitize user-supplied filenames, then this issue may be exploited to read or write arbitrary files. This affects LocalStorageProvider.cs.",
"id": "GHSA-56jj-mw3h-pcfg",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:38:03Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:53:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-12479"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security401.com/twentytwenty-storage-path-traversal"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-56JP-9733-CCCV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:44 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:24doorGets 7.0 has an arbitrary file deletion vulnerability in /doorgets/app/requests/user/configurationRequest.php. A remote background administrator privilege user can exploit this vulnerability to delete arbitrary files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-11624"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-30T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "doorGets 7.0 has an arbitrary file deletion vulnerability in /doorgets/app/requests/user/configurationRequest.php. A remote background administrator privilege user can exploit this vulnerability to delete arbitrary files.",
"id": "GHSA-56jp-9733-cccv",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:24:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:44:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11624"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/itodaro/doorGets_cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-56PC-6HVP-4GV4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-03 19:57 – Updated: 2026-03-11 20:38Vulnerability
Path traversal in config $include resolution allowed arbitrary local file reads outside the config directory boundary (CWE-22).
Attack Vectors
- If an attacker can modify OpenClaw config, they can set
$includeto absolute paths (for example/etc/passwd) and read files accessible to the OpenClaw process. - If an attacker can modify OpenClaw config, they can use traversal paths (for example
../../...) to escape the config directory. - If an attacker can create symlinks inside the config directory, they can point includes to external files unless real-path checks are enforced.
- Impact scope is bounded by the file permissions of the OpenClaw runtime user; this is not an unauthenticated remote-only vector by itself.
Impact
A successful exploit can expose local secrets and credentials readable by the OpenClaw process user, including API keys and private config material.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Vulnerable versions:
<=2026.2.15 - Patched versions:
>=2026.2.17
Fix Commit(s)
d1c00dbb7c64a39e205464dae7f2a068420e91c1
Release Process Note
Patched version is pre-set to 2026.2.17. Once npm release 2026.2.17 is available, this advisory is ready to publish.
OpenClaw thanks @aether-ai-agent for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.2.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32061"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-03T19:57:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-11T14:16:28Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Vulnerability\n\nPath traversal in config `$include` resolution allowed arbitrary local file reads outside the config directory boundary (CWE-22).\n\n### Attack Vectors\n\n1. If an attacker can modify OpenClaw config, they can set `$include` to absolute paths (for example `/etc/passwd`) and read files accessible to the OpenClaw process.\n2. If an attacker can modify OpenClaw config, they can use traversal paths (for example `../../...`) to escape the config directory.\n3. If an attacker can create symlinks inside the config directory, they can point includes to external files unless real-path checks are enforced.\n4. Impact scope is bounded by the file permissions of the OpenClaw runtime user; this is not an unauthenticated remote-only vector by itself.\n\n## Impact\n\nA successful exploit can expose local secrets and credentials readable by the OpenClaw process user, including API keys and private config material.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Vulnerable versions: `\u003c=2026.2.15`\n- Patched versions: `\u003e=2026.2.17`\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n\n- `d1c00dbb7c64a39e205464dae7f2a068420e91c1`\n\n## Release Process Note\n\nPatched version is pre-set to `2026.2.17`. Once npm release `2026.2.17` is available, this advisory is ready to publish.\n\nOpenClaw thanks @aether-ai-agent for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-56pc-6hvp-4gv4",
"modified": "2026-03-11T20:38:37Z",
"published": "2026-03-03T19:57:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-56pc-6hvp-4gv4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32061"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/d1c00dbb7c64a39e205464dae7f2a068420e91c1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-arbitrary-file-read-via-include-directive-path-traversal"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw vulnerable to arbitrary file read via $include directive"
}
GHSA-56Q3-56WG-JP8M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 18:44 – Updated: 2022-05-01 18:44Directory traversal vulnerability in index.php in mBlog 1.2 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the page parameter in a page mode action.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2007-6582"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2007-12-28T21:46:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Directory traversal vulnerability in index.php in mBlog 1.2 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the page parameter in a page mode action.",
"id": "GHSA-56q3-56wg-jp8m",
"modified": "2022-05-01T18:44:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T18:44:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-6582"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/39234"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/4766"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/39620"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/28242"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/26989"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-56R4-VJ3R-H3VV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-20 03:50 – Updated: 2025-04-28 15:31GNU Mailman 2.1.39, as bundled in cPanel (and WHM), allows unauthenticated attackers to read arbitrary files via ../ directory traversal at /mailman/private/mailman (aka the private archive authentication endpoint) via the username parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-43919"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-24"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-20T01:15:45Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "GNU Mailman 2.1.39, as bundled in cPanel (and WHM), allows unauthenticated attackers to read arbitrary files via ../ directory traversal at /mailman/private/mailman (aka the private archive authentication endpoint) via the username parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-56r4-vj3r-h3vv",
"modified": "2025-04-28T15:31:38Z",
"published": "2025-04-20T03:50:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43919"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/0NYX-MY7H/CVE-2025-43919"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cpanel/mailman2-python3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/04/21/6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-56RW-R678-MMWC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-21 21:32 – Updated: 2026-10-21 21:32The Pulsar Packages Management Service can be configured to store packages on the local filesystem of the broker by using the filesystem storage provider. Package names consist of a type, tenant, namespace, name and version. Authorization of package operations is based only on the tenant and namespace, while the storage location of a package is derived from all of these components. The version component of a package name was not validated, so it could contain URL-encoded path separators and parent directory references. The filesystem storage provider resolved such a version to a location belonging to a package in a different tenant or namespace. Because that location is inside the configured storage directory, the containment check that the filesystem storage provider performs in recent releases did not prevent the access.
An authenticated user who has the packages permission on any namespace could use this to download, overwrite or delete packages stored in other tenants or namespaces for which the user has no permission. Packages overwritten or deleted in this way may be used by Pulsar Functions, Sources or Sinks, so the issue can affect the integrity and availability of these components. If authentication is disabled, the operations are available to any client that can reach the broker's admin REST API.
This issue only affects deployments in which package management is enabled with the broker setting enablePackagesManagement and the filesystem storage provider (FileSystemPackagesStorageProvider) is configured with the setting packagesManagementStorageProvider. Package management is disabled by default, and the default storage provider, which stores packages in Apache BookKeeper, is not affected.
This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.10.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5.
- 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14.
- 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5.
Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.
The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-105945"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-21T19:16:57Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Pulsar Packages Management Service can be configured to store packages on the local filesystem of the broker by using the filesystem storage provider. Package names consist of a type, tenant, namespace, name and version. Authorization of package operations is based only on the tenant and namespace, while the storage location of a package is derived from all of these components. The version component of a package name was not validated, so it could contain URL-encoded path separators and parent directory references. The filesystem storage provider resolved such a version to a location belonging to a package in a different tenant or namespace. Because that location is inside the configured storage directory, the containment check that the filesystem storage provider performs in recent releases did not prevent the access.\n\nAn authenticated user who has the packages permission on any namespace could use this to download, overwrite or delete packages stored in other tenants or namespaces for which the user has no permission. Packages overwritten or deleted in this way may be used by Pulsar Functions, Sources or Sinks, so the issue can affect the integrity and availability of these components. If authentication is disabled, the operations are available to any client that can reach the broker\u0027s admin REST API.\n\nThis issue only affects deployments in which package management is enabled with the broker setting enablePackagesManagement and the filesystem storage provider (FileSystemPackagesStorageProvider) is configured with the setting packagesManagementStorageProvider. Package management is disabled by default, and the default storage provider, which stores packages in Apache BookKeeper, is not affected.\n\nThis issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.10.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5.\n\n- 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14.\n- 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5.\n\nUsers operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions.\n\nThe currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/.",
"id": "GHSA-56rw-r678-mmwc",
"modified": "2026-10-21T21:32:34Z",
"published": "2026-10-21T21:32:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-105945"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/o5jt8zrg1qxqdrqlb06jjmj4lzydfm2k"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pulsar.apache.org/security/CVE-2026-105945"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-56VF-FGP4-XJQJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-17 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:31Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in EverPress Mailster allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Mailster: from n/a through 4.0.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-32523"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-98"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-17T09:15:38Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (\u0027Path Traversal\u0027) vulnerability in EverPress Mailster allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Mailster: from n/a through 4.0.6.",
"id": "GHSA-56vf-fgp4-xjqj",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:31:47Z",
"published": "2024-05-17T09:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-32523"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/mailster/vulnerability/wordpress-mailster-plugin-4-0-6-unauthenticated-local-file-inclusion-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/mailster/wordpress-mailster-plugin-4-0-6-unauthenticated-local-file-inclusion-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-56WQ-X3WV-3FF4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-28 22:17 – Updated: 2026-08-28 22:17Summary
The SeaweedFS S3 API gateway did not reject .. path segments in the X-Amz-Copy-Source header used by CopyObject and UploadPartCopy. The request URL path was hardened against traversal in 4.30 (CVE-2026-54917), but the copy-source header was only checked for emptiness, so a .. segment in the copy source survived into the server-side filer path and resolved into a different bucket.
Impact
A confused-deputy authorization bypass that breaks bucket isolation. IAM evaluates the caller's policy against the bucket named in the request URL (the destination the caller owns), while the copy reads its source from the traversed target bucket. An identity scoped to a single bucket (Read + Write on one bucket it controls) can therefore read any object in any bucket on the instance and land the result in its own bucket.
For example, a caller authorized only for bucket-a issues a CopyObject into bucket-a with copy source bucket-a/../<victim-bucket>/<key>; the gateway reads <victim-bucket>/<key> and writes it to the attacker-controlled destination, from which the caller reads it normally. UploadPartCopy (CopyObjectPartHandler) is affected by the same vector.
Affected versions
All releases prior to 4.34. The 4.30 fix for CVE-2026-54917 hardened the request URL path but not the X-Amz-Copy-Source header.
Patched version
4.34 and later.
Remediation
Upgrade to 4.34 or later. The fix validates the copy-source bucket and object key with the same IsValidBucketName / IsValidObjectKey guards already applied to the request URL, rejecting traversal segments before the handler runs, and applies the same check to UploadPartCopy.
Workaround
No configuration workaround. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, front the gateway with a reverse proxy that rejects requests whose X-Amz-Copy-Source header contains .., %2e%2e, or backslash sequences.
References
- Fix: https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs/pull/9929 (commit b44cf51fe931bd75aa4d37ae766bea90d7f85ccd)
Credit
Reported responsibly by @47Cid.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260612000715-b44cf51fe931"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-55874"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-28T22:17:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-08T15:16:30Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe SeaweedFS S3 API gateway did not reject `..` path segments in the `X-Amz-Copy-Source` header used by `CopyObject` and `UploadPartCopy`. The request URL path was hardened against traversal in 4.30 (CVE-2026-54917), but the copy-source header was only checked for emptiness, so a `..` segment in the copy source survived into the server-side filer path and resolved into a different bucket.\n\n### Impact\nA confused-deputy authorization bypass that breaks bucket isolation. IAM evaluates the caller\u0027s policy against the bucket named in the request URL (the destination the caller owns), while the copy reads its source from the traversed target bucket. An identity scoped to a single bucket (`Read` + `Write` on one bucket it controls) can therefore read any object in any bucket on the instance and land the result in its own bucket.\n\nFor example, a caller authorized only for `bucket-a` issues a `CopyObject` into `bucket-a` with copy source `bucket-a/../\u003cvictim-bucket\u003e/\u003ckey\u003e`; the gateway reads `\u003cvictim-bucket\u003e/\u003ckey\u003e` and writes it to the attacker-controlled destination, from which the caller reads it normally. `UploadPartCopy` (CopyObjectPartHandler) is affected by the same vector.\n\n### Affected versions\nAll releases prior to 4.34. The 4.30 fix for CVE-2026-54917 hardened the request URL path but not the `X-Amz-Copy-Source` header.\n\n### Patched version\n4.34 and later.\n\n### Remediation\nUpgrade to 4.34 or later. The fix validates the copy-source bucket and object key with the same `IsValidBucketName` / `IsValidObjectKey` guards already applied to the request URL, rejecting traversal segments before the handler runs, and applies the same check to `UploadPartCopy`.\n\n### Workaround\nNo configuration workaround. For deployments that cannot upgrade immediately, front the gateway with a reverse proxy that rejects requests whose `X-Amz-Copy-Source` header contains `..`, `%2e%2e`, or backslash sequences.\n\n### References\n- Fix: https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs/pull/9929 (commit b44cf51fe931bd75aa4d37ae766bea90d7f85ccd)\n\n### Credit\nReported responsibly by [@47Cid](https://github.com/47Cid).",
"id": "GHSA-56wq-x3wv-3ff4",
"modified": "2026-08-28T22:17:33Z",
"published": "2026-08-28T22:17:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs/security/advisories/GHSA-56wq-x3wv-3ff4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-55874"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs/pull/9929"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs/commit/b44cf51fe931bd75aa4d37ae766bea90d7f85ccd"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs/releases/tag/4.34"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SeaweedFS: Path traversal in the S3 gateway X-Amz-Copy-Source header allows cross-bucket object read"
}
GHSA-5736-44WC-9QJP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-22 15:30 – Updated: 2023-03-02 21:30Local File Inclusion vulnerability within Cloudflow allows attackers to retrieve confidential information from the system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-41216"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-829"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-22T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Local File Inclusion vulnerability within Cloudflow allows attackers to retrieve confidential information from the system.",
"id": "GHSA-5736-44wc-9qjp",
"modified": "2023-03-02T21:30:28Z",
"published": "2023-02-22T15:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-41216"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/2022-00052"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/CVE-2022-41216"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://csirt.divd.nl/DIVD-2022-00052"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-5.1
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.
- Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-20.1
Strategy: Input Validation
- Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
- Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes:
- realpath() in C
- getCanonicalPath() in Java
- GetFullPath() in ASP.NET
- realpath() or abs_path() in Perl
- realpath() in PHP
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-21.1
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
- When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation MIT-34
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
- Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately.
- This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-126: Path Traversal
An adversary uses path manipulation methods to exploit insufficient input validation of a target to obtain access to data that should be not be retrievable by ordinary well-formed requests. A typical variety of this attack involves specifying a path to a desired file together with dot-dot-slash characters, resulting in the file access API or function traversing out of the intended directory structure and into the root file system. By replacing or modifying the expected path information the access function or API retrieves the file desired by the attacker. These attacks either involve the attacker providing a complete path to a targeted file or using control characters (e.g. path separators (/ or \) and/or dots (.)) to reach desired directories or files.
CAPEC-64: Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-78: Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
CAPEC-79: Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.